As noted on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=166), it appears that retired FBI polygrapher Ron Homer of Walnut Creek, California, currently listed as a member of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners' board of directors (http://www.californiapolygraph.com/association/board-of-directors.htm), was beaten by disgraced Olympic track star Marion Jones, who is expected to plead guilty today to having lied to federal agents regarding her use of performance-enhancing substances. Homer found Jones non-deceptive (https://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-025.shtml#kravets-16-12-04) in a polygraph examination administered on 16 June 2004 in which he asked if she had ever used performance enhancing drugs.
George,
This report presents a very unique paradox. Lets examine this:
Polygraph test given with NDI results.
No indication of countermeasures (any type)
Normal charts produced.
Polygrapher is of sufficient vintage to have countermeasure detection training.
Examinee lying through her teeth. Beats the polygraph.
Must be a fluke, a deviation from the norm. Its the only thing that can explain this.
Perhaps our resident polygraphers would like to crack this nut ?
Regards .....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Oct 05, 2007, 12:27 PMGeorge,
This report presents a very unique paradox. Lets examine this:
Polygraph test given with NDI results.
No indication of countermeasures (any type)
Normal charts produced.
Polygrapher is of sufficient vintage to have countermeasure detection training.
Examinee lying through her teeth. Beats the polygraph.
Must be a fluke, a deviation from the norm. Its the only thing that can explain this.
Perhaps our resident polygraphers would like to crack this nut ?
Regards .....
I think you hit the nail on the head.
It was a fluke.
Be careful though ---- not having seen the charts, we really don't know about the normal-ness of them
---------
It might be interesting to see the questions, as this could be the difference between "drugs" and "substances" - a fine line for sure. Nevertheless, it would be most interesting to understand more about what happened, as it does seem like a rare occurrence.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 05, 2007, 12:53 PMI think you hit the nail on the head.
It was a fluke.
Be careful though ---- not having seen the charts, we really don't know about the normal-ness of them
---------
It might be interesting to see the questions, as this could be the difference between "drugs" and "substances" - a fine line for sure. Nevertheless, it would be most interesting to understand more about what happened, as it does seem like a rare occurrence.
Ludovico,
I can live with a fluke, in this case justice was served. Guilt was established, punishment meted out.
But lets just extrapolate this out a bit. So one fluke or maybe he was missioned, if this happened during the hiring of a person for a sensitive or trusted position. That person would have avoided detection, if beating the machine was the intent, and would be running wild within any one of the US agencies. We must assume that for this penetration, this persons motive is not benevolent. All it takes is one fluke and you have another Pollard, Hansson, or Ames. So explain to me why this fluke can't happen again, with much more sever consequences ?
Regards ....
It won't happen again.
We'll all be especially watchful now.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 05, 2007, 01:14 PMIt won't happen again.
We'll all be especially watchful now.
Ludovico,
I can see you are earnest in that belief. But It presents the question, do you know what you are watching for ?
If so, within the realm of not devulging trade secrets. Add to this discussion, with more than one line answers.
We need to know, the investigative process is just that .... to answer questions, explore, explain. Perhaps one of your other colleagues would like to answer ?
Best Regards ....
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 05, 2007, 01:14 PMIt won't happen again.
We'll all be especially watchful now.
It
will happen again. An invalid test such as CQT polygraphy will inevitably yield erroneous results. All the more so when the test is easily countermeasured.
Please site peer reviewed scientific proof that your countermeasures can successfully thwart a true positive. Pretty Please? ::)
See the studies by Honts and others cited with abstracts in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). With no more than 30 minutes of training, some half of programmed deceptive subjects passed the polygraph.
I am sorry, I thought I asked for peer reviewed studies and I don't believe such has been provided.
The studies by Honts and others to which I referred were indeed published in a peer-reviewed journal (the Journal of Applied Psychology). Perhaps you should have checked before making a sarcastic post?
Right Right----the old Honts study---the alarm study which launched 1000 frantic counter-countermeasures. Are you printing that old documant on T-shirts? Jesus H. Did they use sensor pads in that study? Did they train the examiners on how to spot the countermeasures? C'mon George.
Paradiddle,
You dismiss these peer-reviewed studies out of hand, and yet it's evident from your questions that you haven't read them...
The polygraph examiners knew in advance what countermeasures would be used but still could not detect them. Although no sensor pads or strain gauges were employed, only one of the countermeasures tested -- pressing one's toes to the floor -- might have been detected by a sensor pad. The other two techniques tested and demonstrated to be effective are among those recommended in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector: tongue-biting and mental (or cognitive) countermeasures.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 01:44 PMPlease site peer reviewed scientific proof that your countermeasures can successfully thwart a true positive. Pretty Please? ::)
Paradiddle,
You should keep in mind that the onus for proof is on the proponents of a theory, not the critics. Perhaps you should be citing the peer reviewed scientiffic research that demonstrates that what happened was just a fluke.
Speaking to nobody in particular,
Now this is something I've been wondering about for awhile. It's been argued that people with certain medical conditions are likely to fail simply as a result of their weak heart or what have you. Could the same be true for the opposite case; people of exceptional health.
This is one of those things that could very well be an urban myth for all I know, but I heard that while the avg person might have a heart rate of 72 bpm at rest, an healthy could be as low 60 bpm at rest. Is it possible that all finely tuned athletes could have that secret ability to pass polygraphs simply by way of superb health? I know that's really off topic since she was "user." I just thought it'd be fun to talk about.
Quote from: Brettski on Oct 05, 2007, 02:39 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 01:44 PMPlease site peer reviewed scientific proof that your countermeasures can successfully thwart a true positive. Pretty Please? ::)
Paradiddle,
You should keep in mind that the onus for proof is on the proponents of a theory, not the critics. Perhaps you should be citing the peer reviewed scientiffic research that demonstrates that what happened was just a fluke.
Keep in mind that we have two theories here:
1) that countermeasures can defeat the test in a modern testing context (I think we all know that old studies don't cut it - the situation is changed now that George has initiated his campaign to educate and encourage every terrorist, psychopath, and sex offender to use countermeasures),
and
2) that countermeasures can be easily detected.
Even your own digithead's favorite source of information - the NRC report - concurs that there is evidence that countermeasures don't help, and that claims that they do require supporting evidence.
I think they had this to say about mental countermeasures:
QuoteIt is widely believed that physical and mental countermeasures are ineffective for reducing physiological responses to relevant questions in polygraph examinations, but investigations of this strategy have not been reported. (page 141)
and this
QuoteThe empirical research on countermeasures has not provided enough information to determine whether specific countermeasures have the specific physiological effects that would lead a polygraph examiner to judge an examinee as nondeceptive. Consequently, it is difficult to determine why specific countermeasure strategies might or might not work. We
would not expect specific countermeasures (e.g., biting one's tongue) to have uniform effects on all of the chart readings obtained during a polygraph test, and studies that focus exclusively on the effects of countermeasures on accuracy do not allow one to determine why specific approaches might work or fail to work in different contexts.
You've all read this stuff.
QuotePolygraph examiners commonly claim to be able to detect the use of countermeasures, both through their observations of the examinee's behavior and through an assessment of the recorded polygraph chart. Some countermeasures, such as the use of psychoactive drugs (e.g., diazepam, commonly known as Valium), have broad behavioral consequences and should be relatively easy to detect (Iacono, Boisvenu, and Fleming, 1984). Whether polygraph examiners can detect more subtle countermeasures
or, more importantly, can be trained to detect them, remains an open question.
They don't sound convinced one way or the other.
Oh well.
but this is noteworthy
QuoteBecause it is possible that countermeasures can increase "failure" rates among nondeceptive examinees and because a judgment that an examineeis using countermeasures can have the same practical effect as the judgment that the test indicates deception, their use by innocent individuals may be misguided.
"failure" meaning, of course "not passing"
and finally,
Quote...claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the
polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence
to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.
-------
So, with that....
"Have fun storming the castle!"
l
Ludovico,
Thank you for the references and sources. :)
There is much to digest.
Even without my questions fully answered.
Till Next time !!
Regards ....
I guess it is easy to claim the polygraph is accurate and useful when you pass off any known inaccuracy as a "fluke" and point to any known accurate result as typical.
I noticed the conversation quickly moved away from the obvious failure of the polygraph in this case and into other areas, like dueling quotations and claims that each is being misused.
How do we know that she didn't use countermeasures?
For all the polygraph examiners on the board who have recently scored any charts as NDI, how do you know you weren't wrong? I'm sure Ron Homer thought he was right when he scored her chart. What is the difference between you and he?
How do we know she was using CM's? we don't. Don't beat this one to death until we know what happened. This morning there were comments she was taking 'flaxseed oil'. Don't worry, I didn't believe that one either. It will be interesting if we can find out what questions were asked.
Again, we have never claimed 100% accuracy.
Lesse now, I think it was your own EOS who first suggested it was a fluke.
Keep in mind. We really don't know everything about that test yet. It would be interesting to see it.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 05, 2007, 03:49 PMKeep in mind that we have two theories here:
1) that countermeasures can defeat the test in a modern testing context (I think we all know that old studies don't cut it - the situation is changed now that George has initiated his campaign to educate and encourage every terrorist, psychopath, and sex offender to use countermeasures),
I don't know that "old studies don't cut it," as you aver. Could you explain why the studies by Honts et al. that I cited should be discounted?
As for your suggestion that I'm on a "campaign to educate and encourage every terrorist, psychopath, and sex offender to use countermeasures," 1) that's not the case: AntiPolygraph.org provides polygraph countermeasure information to the public in order to provide truthful persons with a means of protecting themselves against the significant risk of a false positive outcome and 2) even if our purpose
were to aid the guilty, it would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the information presented. See my "Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public." (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml)
Quoteand
2) that countermeasures can be easily detected.
This is a postion that polygraphers such as Charles Honts and Gordon Barland are not taking.
QuoteEven your own digithead's favorite source of information - the NRC report - concurs that there is evidence that countermeasures don't help, and that claims that they do require supporting evidence.
You made this argument a few days ago, and as I pointed out then (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3696.msg25991#msg25991), the study to which the NRC/NAS report refers in this regard was of "spontaneous" or untrained countermeasures, which are not comparable to the "point" countermeasures (applied timely with the control questions) described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.Quotebut this is noteworthy
QuoteBecause it is possible that countermeasures can increase "failure" rates among nondeceptive examinees and because a judgment that an examineeis using countermeasures can have the same practical effect as the judgment that the test indicates deception, their use by innocent individuals may be misguided.
"failure" meaning, of course "not passing"
The foregoing passage, too, is made with reference to the same study of
untrained countermeasures: things that examinees without knowledge of polygraph procedure think up themselves in the hope of increasing their chances of passing. To cite this passage without the proper context is misleading. There is no evidence that the kind of countermeasures taught in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector increase an innocent examinee's chances of a false positive result.
Quoteand finally,
Quote...claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the
polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence
to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.
While the studies by Honts et al. did not specifically address the ease with which countermeasures may be taught, it bears repeating that under the low motivational conditions of the laboratory (where examinees had minimal incentive to learn), half of deceptive subjects were able to pass the polygraph with a
maximum of 30 minutes of training, and trained and experienced examiners were unable to detect them. Of course, more research would be welcome, but this is an area of inquiry that DACA, (http://www.daca.mil) the main funding source for polygraph research, seems uneager to explore.
The NRC/NAS report's key conclusion (at p. 214) regarding polygraph countermeasures is that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
George,
Old studies don't answer the question because the circumstances have evolved, since you have chosen to encourage every terrorist, criminal, and sex offender who uses the Internet to attempt to pass the polygraph while lying. You have also chosen to make fodder out of a lot of good people who would be better off without your advice.
You forgot the part on Page 151:
QuoteThere is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
Have a nice day.